When it comes to the topic of religious equality and "rules" one must be especially careful of making sure they abide by just that: equality. Too often we see situations where the majority gets favored, even if a certain policy deems otherwise. The leaders of schools have a responsibility to their students and their communities to establish a healthy environment of acceptance and tolerance of religious prayer and practice, and if that is not possible then prayer in schools should be eliminated as an option altogether.
although I am not a believer in the elimination of the word "God" from the Pledge of Alliegance, I can understand that for some religions this may counter-act their disposition on where they feel they are "under," as the phrase goes. The Pledge was an original written document that was true to the beliefs of the time, and changing the wording now would be like changing any other wording or phrasing in the Pledge that is deemed outdated or not accepted by all. The point is that those who speak out against the usage of "God" feel that it is an unfair approach to a non-religious subject, and many feel that the same applies to a school environment.
ultimately it comes down to the difference between the education of religion and the influence of religion. For example, here at High Point we offer students a chance to study the various sects of religion world-wide. Other schools consider this to be a preaching environment of persuasion and coursing students to think or feel a certain way about religion. I feel it is necessary to educate and inform students of adversity, so that if a school chooses to allow prayer it will not come as a culture shock, nor will it seem wrong. In actuality they will accept it as a normal part of the world and skip the informality that most of us feel while being in the presence of a religious act that is not familiar to us personally.
If prayer is to be allowed in schools it is the responsibility of the educators to make sure that the students are we--informed and aware of where each of these acts come from. I think that part of the opposition towards this act comes from the fact that it makes people uncomfortable because they don't recognize the act, are confused by it, and therefore intimidated by it.
One must also consider, though, the position of the non-religious and the religiously content. Many are not open to even being exposed to acts that portray something that is unlike that which they are accustomed or accepting of. This is, again, where it is up to our school's leaders to make a judgment call. Certain areas are more liberal and accepting or adversity than others and it is up to those in control to determine the level of acceptance that is inside the school. Otherwise they will on;y be setting up a situation that calls for acts of religious descrimination, prejudice, hate crimes, and overall violence and a tense environment, which would not promote an adequate learnign environment for the students.
overall it is up to our leaders to decide and observe the levels of acceptance and tollerance that surround their school and the community. Religion is something that lays in the most secure and stubb orn parts of peoples hearts, and for good reason; it's a very personal subject. until we can be sure that acceptance is an absolute certainty, prayer in a school environment would only generate an unhealthy setting.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
This. . .article . . .
Both novels bring up striking images of where our society is going. However different the concept remains that humanity and morality will be shattered, no matter if we were to evolve into a society based on sensual pleasures or fear and removal of all sensations physical. The author of Conclusion: The Two Futures" A.F. 632 and 1984 determines that the influence, and the accusations that resulted because of it, were unneccessary because they both could be realistically visualized.
I had brought up in class how I would have liked to see at least one of the novels portray a sense of hope, or at least a hero that maintained a sense of humanity. AFter reading this article I understand my my "glass half full" attitude (as described by Ms. H :-] ) was more drawn to Brave New World. The article explains how in 1984 "there are only echoes of God." and in Brave New World "Huxley's Savage, despite the betrayal of his inmost beliefs, holds fast to the essential core of those beliefs and this adherence gives his death meaning. In The Savage we can still see Christ. In Winston Smitch there is only a Christ who has sold out to the devil." I find extreme truth in this because although the ending of Brave New World showed ultimate defeat of the Savage, it was his defeat to himself that drove him to his own death. He still upholds that sense of humanity until the night before his death, and it is in that moment that he foregoes his beliefs that he realizes he can never be pure again and that he would rather die than go on living as one of them, one who has alienated God, essentially and in essence alienating humanity and the morals that go along with it. With Winston he somewhat carries the illusion and transluscent layer of someone who wishes to uphold a humane image, but ultimately fails. At least in the Savage dies with those morals in tact. I would not go as far to say he was a martyr. He had no one to prove anything to and no one else to set an example for. There were no more like him. The article goes on to say that both Winston and the Savage were "the last of their kind." Anything they attempted to prove would have to be to themselves, and it is in this respect that they both fell short.
I think it was silly on Orwell's part to make any accusations whatsoever based on the influecnes or merit of which Brave New World was created upon. To make an accusation of plaigarism is not only childish but foolish for an author with a published work of the same accord. As the author of the article writes "there is such an unseemly glee in this hasty response and in the crude terms in which it is put that one's suspicions are immediately aroused" (122). It seems almost to the point that he purposely wanted people to further analyze and look into the influences and inspirations that helped to create 1984 and as the article goes on to say "diminish somehow the connection between himself and Zamiatin" (122). It surprises me that such a credited author would feel the need to act like basically a high school freshman and point fingers at someone else for doing something that they were afraid of getting caught with. It's like liar liar pants on fire. And the author of the article is right. While there are even similiarties and speculations between Orwell's influence of Huxley and the connection between the two novels it is clear that wherever they came from doesn't matter because what they portray and paint a picture of is what is going to make the difference. It's the overall piece, not the paintbrush that makes the impact. They say if you can dream it and imagine in then it can come true. These horrifying depictions of a future society have been dreamed up and put out there for us to experience through words. Let's hope it stays that way now that we're aware where our need for power can take us.
I had brought up in class how I would have liked to see at least one of the novels portray a sense of hope, or at least a hero that maintained a sense of humanity. AFter reading this article I understand my my "glass half full" attitude (as described by Ms. H :-] ) was more drawn to Brave New World. The article explains how in 1984 "there are only echoes of God." and in Brave New World "Huxley's Savage, despite the betrayal of his inmost beliefs, holds fast to the essential core of those beliefs and this adherence gives his death meaning. In The Savage we can still see Christ. In Winston Smitch there is only a Christ who has sold out to the devil." I find extreme truth in this because although the ending of Brave New World showed ultimate defeat of the Savage, it was his defeat to himself that drove him to his own death. He still upholds that sense of humanity until the night before his death, and it is in that moment that he foregoes his beliefs that he realizes he can never be pure again and that he would rather die than go on living as one of them, one who has alienated God, essentially and in essence alienating humanity and the morals that go along with it. With Winston he somewhat carries the illusion and transluscent layer of someone who wishes to uphold a humane image, but ultimately fails. At least in the Savage dies with those morals in tact. I would not go as far to say he was a martyr. He had no one to prove anything to and no one else to set an example for. There were no more like him. The article goes on to say that both Winston and the Savage were "the last of their kind." Anything they attempted to prove would have to be to themselves, and it is in this respect that they both fell short.
I think it was silly on Orwell's part to make any accusations whatsoever based on the influecnes or merit of which Brave New World was created upon. To make an accusation of plaigarism is not only childish but foolish for an author with a published work of the same accord. As the author of the article writes "there is such an unseemly glee in this hasty response and in the crude terms in which it is put that one's suspicions are immediately aroused" (122). It seems almost to the point that he purposely wanted people to further analyze and look into the influences and inspirations that helped to create 1984 and as the article goes on to say "diminish somehow the connection between himself and Zamiatin" (122). It surprises me that such a credited author would feel the need to act like basically a high school freshman and point fingers at someone else for doing something that they were afraid of getting caught with. It's like liar liar pants on fire. And the author of the article is right. While there are even similiarties and speculations between Orwell's influence of Huxley and the connection between the two novels it is clear that wherever they came from doesn't matter because what they portray and paint a picture of is what is going to make the difference. It's the overall piece, not the paintbrush that makes the impact. They say if you can dream it and imagine in then it can come true. These horrifying depictions of a future society have been dreamed up and put out there for us to experience through words. Let's hope it stays that way now that we're aware where our need for power can take us.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Deeply Committed
I am deeply committed to optimism (okay I'm ready for everyone's arrows, bullets, nuclear bombs, swords and blowtorches to come flying out at me). AND...I am not ashamed of it. Ask me the same question 5 years prior to today and I would have had a completely different answer for you...like...I am deeply committed and inspired by nothing. It's all about the process, and this is where my entry truly begins.
I value the merits of optimism because they have posed such an extreme challenge towards me throughout my life. Up until I was 12 years old I was raised in your average every day perfect American household: my mother stayed at home with us because my father, being the bread winner, held an esteemed job in Wayne, New Jersey as a middle school principal. We were also actively involved in the community, my father being a champion soccer coach and my mother actively participating in market day and monthly PTO meetings. Optimism was not required for me here because I was smothered with a blanket of false security for most my life, and thinking on a broad scale was not possible for a girl as young as me. But then when things went from perfect to dysfunctional, and then from bad to worse, and then from worse to unbearable, thinking in a positive light was probably the last thing on my mind. Being so young I did not know what to do with pain, so I got angry and mean. I lashed out like any young teen would in a time of trauma: the black eyeliner smeared the extremities of my eyelids, my favorite color became black, I did unthinkable things to myself to try and surpress the inner pain.
While it hurts and is painful to remember those difficult years I would not be the person I am without them. My mother being the amazing woman she is understood my need for help and had me undergo three months of therapy with the man that I will forever be grateful for for changing my life. He never gave up on the fact that I was unresponsive for weeks, hated everything about the room I sat in with him from the chairs, the lousy artwork, and the horrible smell of old candle wax, and gave him no chance whatsoever to change my outlook.
But after a while this facade of playing the tough girl with no self regard for herself or others. I alwyas harbored a love for humanity and the differences we all share. This man was the only person who, for sucha long time, I felt I could express my true love for life, while I acted to the rest of the world, because I was afraid of what they thought of me. I figured that if I kept the world at a distance, then it couldn't hurt me. He taught me to give it a chance, to give the world a chance, and to give happiness a chance. I remember him saying "so what's the worst that could happen? You get sick of happiness and you become miserable again. At least we've eliminated one option." And it made me laugh, not because it was true (we both knew that) but because it really fell into place for me that the options for me are limitless, and most chances are worth taking. And if they don't work out? Well then that's one thing you can cross off the list as something that works for you, and you get to move on to the next thing.
I am not always happy-go-lucky. It's quite the opposite. I have just acquired a sense of self and awareness that works for me, and that I wish could be exposed to more people. I watch the people I care about and love the most struggle through their every day lives because of their fear of the untouchable, the unreachable, and the seemingly unsafe. It's not to say that I'm a go-getting, risk-taking, adrenaline junky. I just live my life very much according to "you have to figure out what you are not before you can find out who you are."
The way I look at my every day life is that every person, every experience, every wonderful/horrible feeling was put in your life for a reason. Every relationship I have had with a person that has either thrived or flourished I take in stride because I know it was put there for a reason. I feel like if I or anyone else can not accept that you are put in situations and scenarios so that you are able to take something from it, learn from it, acquire a lesson from it, and then grow because of it, then what are you living your life for? Yes, some would say that this is linked to fate...great! So then that me4ans that I believe that all things happen for a reason, ultimately for a good reason. Maybe it will not be something that I myself will ever know, but for someone, somewhere, or something, it made a difference. I feel as though to feel otherwise means you walk blindly through life without growth. I will always consider myself a work in progress. I plan to be like my late great grandmother who lived to be 86 years old and kept taking college courses in art, economics, literature etc. She never stopped growing,a nd she never stopped learning. One may argue that because she was never an artist, never pursued any real career other than a bank receptionist or never went to work on Wall Street that her endeavors were all in vain, but that's not the case. For me she gave inspiration. She was happy and positive until the day she died, despite her having open heart surgery twice, being the last living daughter of 4 and outliving one of her sons who died of a heart attack at age 39. She passed as a happy little Italian spitfire who brought joy and peace to a crazy dinner table.
Optimism not only enriches the person who feels and applies it, but inspires and evokes happiness and peace of mind from those who surround that person. I have times when I feel defeated, sure, I'm human. We all just want to punch a brick wall every now and then, and we all pull the "why me" card. I do it, but I'm not ashamed of it. I am aware of my process of healing, and that these moments of pain are temporary. I've gotten through a pretty traumatizing 5 years, and I feel capable of outlasting many more petty things that would have inhibited me from doing my best had I not come out of those 5 years a strong and optimistic person. I am grateful for every trial posed upon me, and I would not take back one single thing in my life that has caused me to shed a tear or lash out because now I see the result of a storm, and it is beautiful peace of mind. Without optimism I coul dhave easily gone down many more dark paths and possibly never come back from them. I am thankful that my years of pressing on in hopes of a better tommorrow were just another step away. And now that i have defeated those demons within me I plan to spend the rest of my life spreading it to others. I believe that my sense of optimism will enrich the lives of other people who feel that they do not have another way out and who are afraid of chance. Even if I only do for one person what my therapist did for me then i will feel like i lived a life worth living.
"In the end everything will be okay.
If it's not okay, it's not the end."
I value the merits of optimism because they have posed such an extreme challenge towards me throughout my life. Up until I was 12 years old I was raised in your average every day perfect American household: my mother stayed at home with us because my father, being the bread winner, held an esteemed job in Wayne, New Jersey as a middle school principal. We were also actively involved in the community, my father being a champion soccer coach and my mother actively participating in market day and monthly PTO meetings. Optimism was not required for me here because I was smothered with a blanket of false security for most my life, and thinking on a broad scale was not possible for a girl as young as me. But then when things went from perfect to dysfunctional, and then from bad to worse, and then from worse to unbearable, thinking in a positive light was probably the last thing on my mind. Being so young I did not know what to do with pain, so I got angry and mean. I lashed out like any young teen would in a time of trauma: the black eyeliner smeared the extremities of my eyelids, my favorite color became black, I did unthinkable things to myself to try and surpress the inner pain.
While it hurts and is painful to remember those difficult years I would not be the person I am without them. My mother being the amazing woman she is understood my need for help and had me undergo three months of therapy with the man that I will forever be grateful for for changing my life. He never gave up on the fact that I was unresponsive for weeks, hated everything about the room I sat in with him from the chairs, the lousy artwork, and the horrible smell of old candle wax, and gave him no chance whatsoever to change my outlook.
But after a while this facade of playing the tough girl with no self regard for herself or others. I alwyas harbored a love for humanity and the differences we all share. This man was the only person who, for sucha long time, I felt I could express my true love for life, while I acted to the rest of the world, because I was afraid of what they thought of me. I figured that if I kept the world at a distance, then it couldn't hurt me. He taught me to give it a chance, to give the world a chance, and to give happiness a chance. I remember him saying "so what's the worst that could happen? You get sick of happiness and you become miserable again. At least we've eliminated one option." And it made me laugh, not because it was true (we both knew that) but because it really fell into place for me that the options for me are limitless, and most chances are worth taking. And if they don't work out? Well then that's one thing you can cross off the list as something that works for you, and you get to move on to the next thing.
I am not always happy-go-lucky. It's quite the opposite. I have just acquired a sense of self and awareness that works for me, and that I wish could be exposed to more people. I watch the people I care about and love the most struggle through their every day lives because of their fear of the untouchable, the unreachable, and the seemingly unsafe. It's not to say that I'm a go-getting, risk-taking, adrenaline junky. I just live my life very much according to "you have to figure out what you are not before you can find out who you are."
The way I look at my every day life is that every person, every experience, every wonderful/horrible feeling was put in your life for a reason. Every relationship I have had with a person that has either thrived or flourished I take in stride because I know it was put there for a reason. I feel like if I or anyone else can not accept that you are put in situations and scenarios so that you are able to take something from it, learn from it, acquire a lesson from it, and then grow because of it, then what are you living your life for? Yes, some would say that this is linked to fate...great! So then that me4ans that I believe that all things happen for a reason, ultimately for a good reason. Maybe it will not be something that I myself will ever know, but for someone, somewhere, or something, it made a difference. I feel as though to feel otherwise means you walk blindly through life without growth. I will always consider myself a work in progress. I plan to be like my late great grandmother who lived to be 86 years old and kept taking college courses in art, economics, literature etc. She never stopped growing,a nd she never stopped learning. One may argue that because she was never an artist, never pursued any real career other than a bank receptionist or never went to work on Wall Street that her endeavors were all in vain, but that's not the case. For me she gave inspiration. She was happy and positive until the day she died, despite her having open heart surgery twice, being the last living daughter of 4 and outliving one of her sons who died of a heart attack at age 39. She passed as a happy little Italian spitfire who brought joy and peace to a crazy dinner table.
Optimism not only enriches the person who feels and applies it, but inspires and evokes happiness and peace of mind from those who surround that person. I have times when I feel defeated, sure, I'm human. We all just want to punch a brick wall every now and then, and we all pull the "why me" card. I do it, but I'm not ashamed of it. I am aware of my process of healing, and that these moments of pain are temporary. I've gotten through a pretty traumatizing 5 years, and I feel capable of outlasting many more petty things that would have inhibited me from doing my best had I not come out of those 5 years a strong and optimistic person. I am grateful for every trial posed upon me, and I would not take back one single thing in my life that has caused me to shed a tear or lash out because now I see the result of a storm, and it is beautiful peace of mind. Without optimism I coul dhave easily gone down many more dark paths and possibly never come back from them. I am thankful that my years of pressing on in hopes of a better tommorrow were just another step away. And now that i have defeated those demons within me I plan to spend the rest of my life spreading it to others. I believe that my sense of optimism will enrich the lives of other people who feel that they do not have another way out and who are afraid of chance. Even if I only do for one person what my therapist did for me then i will feel like i lived a life worth living.
"In the end everything will be okay.
If it's not okay, it's not the end."
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Genetic Engineering
For many it is difficult to embrace the vastness of possibility that the future poses. History tells us that everything that has to do with serious change always takes time, and i believe that for genetic engineering it is no different. While many effects of the process are engaging and beneficial to the quality of the life of many, it still raises moral questions, one of them being "Does man have the right to play 'God?'". The entirety of humanity has evolved beyond recognition from its beginning, and in many ways the transition from natural to medically enhanced conception could also be looked at as such. For many, science is now the answer to a child they never thought they would be able to have. For others, science disregards many of mankind's deepest and oldest relgious standards, as well as leaves the door wide open for people who will abuse such a privelage that was discovered on the principals of good-will. While there are dangers of misuse involved, parents should be allowed to alter specific genetic disfucntions of their children if it improves the overall quality of their lives and the child's lives.
As we see in A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley there are some great things that can come from manufacturing a person, one of them being stability. The people of the State are all healthy and able as far as their physical state is concerned. While some are adjusted differently than others, stability is created through the sense of balance between all of the different castes. The book shows, in a sense, how difference is necessary. A monopoly of any certain type of person, feature, or physical trait causes for that specific trait to be either favored or discriminated against. While they are also manufactured mentally, without the equality of different physical traits there would be a "superior" caste in the sense of health. Even though The Alphas are considered "superior" the lowers castes are still happy as they are AND just as healthy, they are jsut altered to create balance in the State.
For our world, genetic altering is extremely beneficial when in the hands of the right people. For instance, all people who truly want to have a child would have that ability even if their bodies were not fit to carry one. Places like foster homes and orphanages would ultimately be a thing of the past. This would be great because places like those tend to make the unadopted child feel unwanted or ignored. A childhood of people who you don't know interviewing you to find out if you fir their criteria would be traumatizing for anyone. Genetic altering would cause for less unwatned pregnancies OR give the ability to pass on that fertilized egg to someone else who wants a child.
When looking at it from a medical standpoint geentic altering would alter the world indefinitely. Genetic diseases and conditions could be wiped out. A woman with HIV/AIDS or any other STD wouldn't have to worry about passing on her condition to an innocent child. Alcoholism is also said to genetic in the sense that a child of an alcoholic will have a harder time resisting the urge. With genetic altering the child would begin their world without facing an immediate danger and risk of alcoholism that they couldn't help. Also birth defects such as down syndrome, autism, and cerebral palsy would be able to be extracted from the DNA of the child. This way they would have the chance to lead a normal and healthy life instead of a life with confusion and/or pain. An opposing side may argue that this is "God's way" or "the way that it was supposed to be." I feel that if most parents had the opportunity to ensure their child the best life possible and rid them of a potentially shortened or painful life that they would do so. In essence, genetic engineering, when practiced in these ways, would one day become as normal as a flu vaccination or taking Excedrine for a headache. It is another way that technology has found that allows for someone to lead a more comfortable and healthy life.
That being said, as Nancy Gibbs says in her article on genetic engineering, there is enormous potential in this "$4 billion dollar business" for it to get into the wrong hands and be practiced in an unmoralistic way. Gibbs speaks of the difficulty in protecting the rights of Americans of their freedom of choice but still maintaining restriction. There's definitely a line between saving an innocent child from a painful life and allowing a parent to choose if they want their child to be "screened for blond, for smart, for straight, or gay." In that sense people would be treating their children as accessories rather than people. Already there is examples in Hollywood of young celebrities being over-exposed by parents and loved ones to either make money off or state their own claim to fame. If that's the case now without these possibilities, what would stop a parent from putting stronger vocal chords in a child so as to raise them a a singer? Or to build up their muscle capacity so that they are able to be better altheletes, or make them smarter so they can raise them to be doctors? What this type of genetic altering does is takes away the child's opportunity to have their own choices for the outcome in their life in the same ways that being born with down syndrome would. Either genetic altering can inhibit a life's potential, or expand a life's potential. By designing a child to a parent's wants they are restricting them in the same ways in which this process was originally designed to erase.
As a world super power it is our unspoken job to set an example. If the country with the most freedom in the world can practice this means of science with respect to the process and the child involved, the world will follow suit. We CAN NOT let this type of breakthrough do anything but enrich lives instead of restrict them to the wants of soemone who is not them. The restrictions are necessary. Without them, the effects will be devastating and felt world-wide. With them, the world will see less death, more prosperous lives being developed, and a brighter future for someone who may not have been given that chance otherwise.
As we see in A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley there are some great things that can come from manufacturing a person, one of them being stability. The people of the State are all healthy and able as far as their physical state is concerned. While some are adjusted differently than others, stability is created through the sense of balance between all of the different castes. The book shows, in a sense, how difference is necessary. A monopoly of any certain type of person, feature, or physical trait causes for that specific trait to be either favored or discriminated against. While they are also manufactured mentally, without the equality of different physical traits there would be a "superior" caste in the sense of health. Even though The Alphas are considered "superior" the lowers castes are still happy as they are AND just as healthy, they are jsut altered to create balance in the State.
For our world, genetic altering is extremely beneficial when in the hands of the right people. For instance, all people who truly want to have a child would have that ability even if their bodies were not fit to carry one. Places like foster homes and orphanages would ultimately be a thing of the past. This would be great because places like those tend to make the unadopted child feel unwanted or ignored. A childhood of people who you don't know interviewing you to find out if you fir their criteria would be traumatizing for anyone. Genetic altering would cause for less unwatned pregnancies OR give the ability to pass on that fertilized egg to someone else who wants a child.
When looking at it from a medical standpoint geentic altering would alter the world indefinitely. Genetic diseases and conditions could be wiped out. A woman with HIV/AIDS or any other STD wouldn't have to worry about passing on her condition to an innocent child. Alcoholism is also said to genetic in the sense that a child of an alcoholic will have a harder time resisting the urge. With genetic altering the child would begin their world without facing an immediate danger and risk of alcoholism that they couldn't help. Also birth defects such as down syndrome, autism, and cerebral palsy would be able to be extracted from the DNA of the child. This way they would have the chance to lead a normal and healthy life instead of a life with confusion and/or pain. An opposing side may argue that this is "God's way" or "the way that it was supposed to be." I feel that if most parents had the opportunity to ensure their child the best life possible and rid them of a potentially shortened or painful life that they would do so. In essence, genetic engineering, when practiced in these ways, would one day become as normal as a flu vaccination or taking Excedrine for a headache. It is another way that technology has found that allows for someone to lead a more comfortable and healthy life.
That being said, as Nancy Gibbs says in her article on genetic engineering, there is enormous potential in this "$4 billion dollar business" for it to get into the wrong hands and be practiced in an unmoralistic way. Gibbs speaks of the difficulty in protecting the rights of Americans of their freedom of choice but still maintaining restriction. There's definitely a line between saving an innocent child from a painful life and allowing a parent to choose if they want their child to be "screened for blond, for smart, for straight, or gay." In that sense people would be treating their children as accessories rather than people. Already there is examples in Hollywood of young celebrities being over-exposed by parents and loved ones to either make money off or state their own claim to fame. If that's the case now without these possibilities, what would stop a parent from putting stronger vocal chords in a child so as to raise them a a singer? Or to build up their muscle capacity so that they are able to be better altheletes, or make them smarter so they can raise them to be doctors? What this type of genetic altering does is takes away the child's opportunity to have their own choices for the outcome in their life in the same ways that being born with down syndrome would. Either genetic altering can inhibit a life's potential, or expand a life's potential. By designing a child to a parent's wants they are restricting them in the same ways in which this process was originally designed to erase.
As a world super power it is our unspoken job to set an example. If the country with the most freedom in the world can practice this means of science with respect to the process and the child involved, the world will follow suit. We CAN NOT let this type of breakthrough do anything but enrich lives instead of restrict them to the wants of soemone who is not them. The restrictions are necessary. Without them, the effects will be devastating and felt world-wide. With them, the world will see less death, more prosperous lives being developed, and a brighter future for someone who may not have been given that chance otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)